Proposal: ANA/WPG: Lindholm for Trouba

[aufheben]

We said the same about Fowler. It didn't count then and it doesn't count now. Lindholm >>> Trouba.

When? I'm assuming you mean when Fowler was younger.

Don't see any reason why the Ducks would make this trade...kind of weird reasoning as well. You think they're equal and have the same issue so...swap them? OK?

 

[Finnflash]

What is lindholms contract worth?

 

[bumblebeeman]

[mod]

How are they not close, Lindholm has 20 more points in 25 more games than Trouba playing power play time, and with way better teammates on a way better team. Trouba played most of his career with one of the worst defensmen in the league and still put up pretty good numbers, he will explode next year playing top paring with Buff if they can get a deal done.

I definitely don`t think they are equal hence the cap dump I suggested. I`d of thought it could benefit both teams (assuming Trouba doesn`t want to stay in Wpg and the Ducks need to shed some salary). Those players are definitely close tho

 

[Ducks in a row]

For Ducks: Weber, Pacs, Galchenyuk, Gallagher.

Weber is 31 years old not trading Lindholm for a 31 year old defenseman especially one who makes as much as Weber does.

Pacioretty is good player but in 3 years he would be gone because of salary demands not interested in trading Lindholm for that.

Galchenyuk is a good young player that is Lindholm age but not interested in trading Lindholm for him.

Gallagher also not interested.

Just don't forget Trouba plays on a bad team with bad partners

Fowler has been playing with bad partners a lot yet many other teams fans don't care so...

Canadiens offer Gallagher (great contract value)+ (Beaulieu, Pateryn, etc) for Lindholm. I know value is off for habs but this decreases the D logjam in ANA and gives the habs a good duo with Weber.

Yes, I know Lindholm is the last D to get traded by the Ducks because of how good he is, but say he wants out, would a Gallagher proposal be good enough for the Ducks?

Would ducks fans have a heart attack if this were to happen?

Not interested to get us to consider trading Lindholm we need a better main piece. We don't want more defenseman even if we trade one away we have enough as is.

Habs don't have what it takes to get Lindholm unless it's Price. Gallagher is nowhere near good enough to be the main peace

Price is 29 years old and make 7 million this year and next then is a UFA so even Price wouldn't do it.

Agreed on everything except for Gallagher. He's not a 40 point player. No idea why you would call him one. In his rookie year, he was on pace for upwards of 50 points and 28 goals. He then scores 41 pts and 19 goals in a full season, not bad at all, and 11 points in the playoffs.
Since then, 47 points, including 24 goals in 2014-15, and 40 points in 53 games, least season, which would have put him on pace for 62 points including 29 goals.

So yeah, Absolutely no way hes a 40 pt player, come on man, do some research before judging others. He's been on a very nice development curve. He can score, he can put up points, he can chirp away and he can play very rough. Too me, he's worth alot esp when he's the habs spark plug.

He is a 40 point player as in he is good for 40 points at least. Look at his rookie season what he was on pace for then look at the next two seasons what he actually got when playing 81 and 82 games. If he played 82 games from his rookie season his points per game average could of dropped to be less then 50 in 82 games. This past season he had a career season when it came to points per game but who know what would of happened if he played a full 82 games he might of went on a cold streak that would of lowered his points per game average we just don't know. He is a 40 point player until he actually scores 50 or more.

lol
I would then argue that 47 is closer to 50 than it is to 40, so then again ur wrong
He's 50 pt player.

Never reached the 50 point mark but is still a 50 point player close but no cigar.

On pace for 60 points and is def not just a 50 pt player. I think hes good for 60/yr

Congrats he was on pace for 60 points that wouldn't make him a 60 point player let alone good for 60 a year. He need to actually score 60 points multiple times to be good for it a year.

 

[TopShelfWaterBottle]

lol
I would then argue that 47 is closer to 50 than it is to 40, so then again ur wrong
He's 50 pt player.

Btw whats ur team?

One season close to a number doesn't make that player a said number scorer. He's had more seasons closer to 40 then 50 so if you want to claim that 47 is closer to 50 so he's a 50pt guy I will rebuttal with he had a outlier season. Which is fact, but he's only had 4 seasons under his belt if he progresses he can absolutely be a 50pt guy but until he actually hits that mark he's a 40 sorry

 

[Mach85]

Nazem Kadri scored 41 points in 44 games in 2012. If we were having this discussion on September 1st, 2012, and I called Kadri a 75 point player, Legend123 would agree with me. See how that logic is flawed now, Legend? Other factors come into play with small sample sizes. It's best to be conservative until a guy can put that number up over a full season, and even then, a couple of times to make sure it's not an outlier if that player seems to be punching above his weight class.

 

[Legend123]

Nazem Kadri scored 41 points in 44 games in 2012. If we were having this discussion on September 1st, 2012, and I called Kadri a 75 point player, Legend123 would agree with me. See how that logic is flawed now, Legend? Other factors come into play with small sample sizes. It's best to be conservative until a guy can put that number up over a full season, and even then, a couple of times to make sure it's not an outlier if that player seems to be punching above his weight class.

the following year, yeah, I would consider him a ppg player until hes not. I mean you cant really know if hes gonna falter or not. You could call, say Getzalf a 80 point player. You couldnt have known he was gonna score 60 his past season. What happens if this season he scores just 60?

 

[Mach85]

the following year, yeah, I would consider him a ppg player until hes not. I mean you cant really know if hes gonna falter or not. You could call, say Getzalf a 80 point player. You couldnt have known he was gonna score 60 his past season. What happens if this season he scores just 60?

Because Getzlaf has a full season and a track record. Kadri had a 44 game sample, and Gallagher had not much more than that. They're not comparable.

Another example: what's to stop you from calling a guy who had 30 points in 30 games a ppg player? Or a guy with 15 in 15?

How can you consider a guy a "ppg player until he's not" which is what you said, when he hasn't ever been a ppg player? Someone can't "be" something they've never "been" before. That's not possible. Kadri had never been a 75 point guy, he was on pace for it, and using your logic, that would have been good enough for you. Yet he never achieved it in the following seasons, so you would have been wrong. That's why you can't call Gallagher that until he does it.

 

[Legend123]

Because Getzlaf has a full season and a track record. Kadri had a 44 game sample, and Gallagher had less than that. They're not comparable.

Another example: what's to stop you from calling a guy who had 30 points in 30 games a ppg player? Or a guy with 15 in 15?

How can you consider a guy a "ppg player until he's not" which is what you said, when he hasn't ever been a ppg player? Someone can't "be" something they've never "been" before. That's not possible. Kadri had never been a 75 point guy, he was on pace for it, and using your logic, that would have been good enough for you. Yet he never achieved it in the following seasons, so you would have been wrong. That's why you can't call Gallagher that until he does it.

sounds good, lets get back to gallagher next season

 

[Mach85]

sounds good, lets get back to gallagher next season

Oh, we are talking about Gallagher next season. Talking about Gallagher next season is in the future, which involves statistical prediction. To do that, you need historical precedents.

 

[heilongjetsfan]

If the Ducks can't sign Lindholm (only reason to trade him), then they can't sign Trouba who will make a very similar amount. What's the point?

My understanding based on second hand reports of rumours that strangers may or may not be telling the truth about is that Anaheim would prefer a bridge deal with Lindholm and that Trouba would prefer a bridge with the Jets. Lindholm and the Jets are both looking to do max term. This again is my understanding of heresay, so you can take it with a truckload of salt.

If the above were true, it could theoretically be a good trade for both teams.

Fowler - Vatanen
Theodore - Trouba
Depres - Bieksa/Manson/Stoner
Larsson as first call up.

I'm not a Ducks fan, obviously but that seems like a pretty frightening d-corps.

I'm of the opinion that Trouba and Lindholm are close to equal, though I will give a slight edge to the Swede. I'd be ok with some minor evening out, and would potentially be ok with giving up guys like Perreault, Burmi, Armia, Lowry or Dano; prospects like Spacek, Fronk, De Leo; or decently high picks like a 2nd this year or 1st next year. I'd be cool with taking on Stoner's contract too, if that helps.

I'd be willing to overpay a bit to get a guy I see as a small improvement in talent, but who balances our lineup out. Guys like Ehlers and Connor look to be ~60pt players. They don't qualify as "a bit."

 

[Legend123]

Oh, we are talking about Gallagher next season. Talking about Gallagher next season is in the future, which involves statistical prediction. To do that, you need historical precedents.

i mean next year. lets see how he does and give a better assessment of him in a full year

 

[KaseMeOutside]

My understanding based on second hand reports of rumours that strangers may or may not be telling the truth about is that Anaheim would prefer a bridge deal with Lindholm and that Trouba would prefer a bridge with the Jets. Lindholm and the Jets are both looking to do max term. This again is my understanding of heresay, so you can take it with a truckload of salt.

If the above were true, it could theoretically be a good trade for both teams.

Fowler - Vatanen
Theodore - Trouba
Depres - Bieksa/Manson/Stoner
Larsson as first call up.

I'm not a Ducks fan, obviously but that seems like a pretty frightening d-corps.

I'm of the opinion that Trouba and Lindholm are close to equal, though I will give a slight edge to the Swede. I'd be ok with some minor evening out, and would potentially be ok with giving up guys like Perreault, Burmi, Armia, Lowry or Dano; prospects like Spacek, Fronk, De Leo; or decently high picks like a 2nd this year or 1st next year. I'd be cool with taking on Stoner's contract too, if that helps.

I'd be willing to overpay a bit to get a guy I see as a small improvement in talent, but who balances our lineup out. Guys like Ehlers and Connor look to be ~60pt players. They don't qualify as "a bit."

that d corp is better with lindholm than it is trouba

 

[CorgisPer60]

that d corp is better with lindholm than it is trouba

Of course it is, but the rub is actually signing him. Get him signed to a contract that both think is fair, and you can keep your world-class defenseman, just like Jets fans would be thrilled to keep their severely underrated, yet apparently overrated defensemen.

 

[mytduxfan*]

Of course it is, but the rub is actually signing him. Get him signed to a contract that both think is fair, and you can keep your world-class defenseman, just like Jets fans would be thrilled to keep their severely underrated, yet apparently overrated defensemen.

You do realise that Trouba also needs a contract. Why would we swap our world-class, future #1D who needs a contract for your lesser player who needs a contract. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 

[heretik27]

You do realise that Trouba also needs a contract. Why would we swap our world-class, future #1D who needs a contract for your lesser player who needs a contract. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

I wouldn't, but it doesn't stop bored hockey fans from seeing if there's any chance we can make something good come out of a completely unknown situation.

 

[CorgisPer60]

You do realise that Trouba also needs a contract. Why would we swap our world-class, future #1D who needs a contract for your lesser player who needs a contract. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

The poster was talking about scenarios that would facilitate a trade, as the trade forum is known for - hypotheticals. I'm perfectly happy with keeping Trouba, and you guys are perfectly happy with Lindholm. I fully acknowledge that Lindholm is better, but the gulf isn't as big as some of you guys think it is. At any rate, this topic went nowhere and continues in that direction, so it's probably in its best interest to let it die.

 

[xxreact9]

1. Lindholm is better now.
2. Lindholm has higher upside.
3. Lindholm has lesser contract demands.
4. Neither team has any interest or need to trade that player.

Nothing to see here.

 

[mytduxfan*]

I wouldn't, but it doesn't stop bored hockey fans from seeing if there's any chance we can make something good come out of a completely unknown situation.

I'm fine with unknown situations, but let's at least make the hypothetical solutions somewhat realistic.

The poster was talking about scenarios that would facilitate a trade, as the trade forum is known for - hypotheticals. I'm perfectly happy with keeping Trouba, and you guys are perfectly happy with Lindholm. I fully acknowledge that Lindholm is better, but the gulf isn't as big as some of you guys think it is. At any rate, this topic went nowhere and continues in that direction, so it's probably in its best interest to let it die.

Using the same backwards logic your fan base applies to slate Fowler, the gulf is massive. Lindholm is already a #1D, whilst Trouba is #3-4 guy with a terrible defensive game. His shot suppression stats are terrible.

http://public.tableau.com/shared/DP5D2YMHJ?:display_count=yes

"The chart doesn't lie".

 

[GoJetsGo55]

I'm fine with unknown situations, but let's at least make the hypothetical solutions somewhat realistic.



Using the same backwards logic your fan base applies to slate Fowler, the gulf is massive. Lindholm is already a #1D, whilst Trouba is #3-4 guy with a terrible defensive game. His shot suppression stats are terrible.

http://public.tableau.com/shared/DP5D2YMHJ?:display_count=yes

"The chart doesn't lie".

Why does the chart say:

Lindhold - Designated Role: Complete Top Four Dman
Trouba - Designated Role: Complete Top Pairing Dman

?

 

[csk]

Why does the chart say:

Lindhold - Designated Role: Complete Top Four Dman
Trouba - Designated Role: Complete Top Pairing Dman

?

I think it's the type of minutes they get.

 

[GoJetsGo55]

I think it's the type of minutes they get.

I dunno. They were almost identical last year in average TOI / GP

Lindholm - 22:00
Trouba - 22:03

 

[csk]

I dunno. They were almost identical last year in average TOI / GP

Lindholm - 22:00
Trouba - 22:03

Weird, quality of competition maybe?

Or perhaps it's just a function of how many players are ahead in the depth chart.

 

[Number1RedWingsFan52]

Still think that BM would rather have Lindholm over Trouba. Lindholm is still better then Trouba right now and most likely his ceiling is higher.

 

[Homesick]

McDavid is good for 87 pts/year lmao.

Gallgher:
28 pts 44gms (on pace for 52)
41 pts
47 pts
41 pts (on pace for 62)

Sounds good to me. Not only can he produce, score and play rough, he has some amazing advanced numbers. In fact, they have him as a 81% chance of being a top line player based on those numbers.

Seeing ur a flames fans, he has much better advanced numbers than Monahan. I ask u this what do u see in Bennet?? a 30 point player?? I will take a '40 point' player over him any day.

I'm as much of a Flames fan as Gallagher is a 50 or 60 point player. You're wrong on both points; take a seat